【作者】 马彪；

【导师】 郁振华；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 外国哲学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 康德曾不止一次地说：“上帝、自由和灵魂不朽是这样一些课题,解决它们是形而上学的一切准备的目的所在,是它的最后的和惟一的目的。”’可以想见,对康德而言，上帝论题是多么的重要。然而,就康德研究的现状而言,人们却把关注的重心放在了康德批判哲学中的理论哲学与实践哲学上，该体系中不可或缺的宗教哲学,尤其是上帝论题则较少被人问及。诚然,导致这种现象的原因非止端,小过,如果我们想要全面理解康德及其哲学，就不可偏废或者忽视康德对上帝与宗教的看法,因为后者是我们从整体上理解其哲学体系的重要面向。为了考察康德眼中的上帝问题,我们须事先对其批判哲学体系加以辨析。与传统把康德批判哲学体系视为真、善、美有机统一的观点不同,我们主张康德批判哲学体系可以划分为理论哲学、实践哲学与宗教哲学三个部分,以分别回应康德批判哲学的终极旨趣,即“人是什么”这一总问题下的三个子问题：1、我能够知道什么?2、我应当做什么?3、我可以希望什么?对我们来说,康德批判哲学体系中作为理念的的上帝毫无疑问具有客观的实在性。须加注意的是,这里所谓的“实在性”的理念绝不能坐实于科学或自然的意义上,而只能体现在形而上学或道德的层面中。可以说，上帝作为最实在的存在(ens realissimum),它在理论哲学中的作用不是建构性的,而是范导性的,即它通过对知性范畴以综合统一性的指引,进而给予经验科学的研究提供发展的方向。在实践哲学中,上帝的实在性则是由道德法则来保证的。对康德来说,基于自由之上的道德法则无疑是客观实在的,它直接无条件地规定我们当做什么,或不当做什么。由道德法则所规定的意志的对象至善是必须能够实现的,因此,保证德福一致的条件,即上帝,自然也是无可置疑的。最后,康德认为,宗教哲学所要解决的是“我可以希望什么”的问题,它既是个理论问题,又是个实践问题。既然我们在理论哲学中已经证明了上帝是最实在的存在,而在实践哲学中道德法则又保证了上帝的的存在,那么,宗教哲学中的的上帝自当实存无疑。具体来说,康德批判哲学体系中的上帝之实在性体现如下首先,在理论哲学中,上帝作为无条件的理念,它为知性范畴提供了先验的基础,一切概念只有在这里才能得到完全的规定。在此意义上,可以将它称之为一切实在性大全(omnitudo realitatis)的理念。上帝的实在性不在于经验的证明,其作用是范导性的,它并小直接干涉自然科学中的研究,而只是对知性范畴加以引导,从而使科学的发展从有条件的的面向趋近于无条件的统一性。由于上帝不是建构性的,因此我们根本无法认识上帝,也不可能对上帝有经验的的体察,它只是个先验的原则性理念,一旦我们将此先验性的原则误认作经验性的原则,就会导致传统宗教中的三类神学证明,即对上帝的本体论证明、宇宙论证明与自然神学证明。在康德看来,虽然这些证明进路各不相同,们是归根结底都错将上帝这先验性原则性的理念进行了经验性的转换,进而把此理念人格化、神圣化。所以,只有对思辨哲学进行批判,才能发现以往关于上帝的争论全都是些无意义的的混战。其次,在实践哲学中,上帝的实在性是山道德法则的实在性来保证的。康德认为,自由是道德法则的的存在前提,是自行开启一种因果关系的能力,因此,基于自由概念之上的的道德法则,就与基于自然概念之上的然规律不同,它可以在不考虑目的的前提下无条件地对我们的意志下达命令,并作出规定。然而,不以目的为指向的道德法则,在对意志进行规定时,必定会引出一个为我们所接受的必然结果,即幸福。就是说,由道德法则出发必将会产生一个既包含目的的形式条件(德性),又包含与此形式条件相一致的东西(幸福),两者的统一就是至善。不过,在康德看来,德福的统一只在理念中有其可能性。因此,为了实现至善,我们需要悬设一个看透人心,并使得德性的人配当幸福的上帝。在实践理性的的层面上,我们可以说,由于道德法则是客观实在的,由道德法则所规定的意志的的客体是确定无疑的,因此,作为实现至善的条件的上帝,也必定是客观实在的。再次,就宗教哲学而言,其目的在于解决“我可以希望什么”的问题。对此,康德认为,一切希望都是指向幸福的,宗教哲学就是要回答我做了我应当做的事情以后,我如何配当幸福的问题,这既是个理论问题,义是个实践问题。既然前理论哲学与实践哲学已经证明了上帝的实在性,那么,宗教哲学就不是解决上帝之实在性的问题而设,而是如何在接受上帝实在性的前提下，使自己成为上帝悦纳的臣民,以配当幸福,从而完成对“我可以希望什么”的回答。在康德看来,为讨得上帝的喜悦以配当幸福,我们就须驱除人性中趋恶的的倾向,发展向善的禀赋。由于个人的软弱与恶的侵袭,我们需要在伦理共同体中组成一个自由的联合体由恶趋善,我们去恶向善的助力不只在于上帝(实现至善的条件),更在于我们对道德法则的敬重。在结语处,我们将对康德批判哲学体系中上帝的实在性论题作一总结。更多还原

【Abstract】 Firstly, the study of Kant’s philosophy of religion has strong practical significance. Kant’s thoughts on God and religion are extremely rich. A deep and accurate understanding of Kant’s religious thinking will help us to understand why in the age of fast development of science and technology so many people are converted to religious faith.Secondly, though there have been some articles on Kant’s philosophy of religion in China in recent years, such as Li Qiulin’s "Kant on the relation between philosophy and theology(2008)", and Deng Xiaomang’s "The revelance of Kant’s philosophy of religion to us"(2003), Kant’s philosophy of religion is basically stereotyped, that is, it is taken as either the denial or the approval of God in Christianity. I think both interpretations are inadequate. Following Peter Byrne, I will offer a new interpretation of Kant’s conception of God. I hope my study will make people appreciate better Kant’s contribution to philosophy of religion.Kant’s philosophy of religion was traditionally interpreted as the undermining of the metaphysical basis of traditional theism by Heine, who "portrayed Kant as a kind of theological Robespierre, a soulless, ruthless, and incorruptible executioner of the Deity", as Allen Wood depicts in his work Kant’s Rational Theology. This interpretation is viewed as outdated in the current philosophical circle. Differing from the traditional interpretation, most philosophers in the Anglo-Saxon world, after reading Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft, claim that Kant’s philosophy of religion is in harmony with traditional Christian theology. I will call this standpoint the affirmative interpretation which argues that "Kant’s philosophy is religiously and theologically affirmative". Opposed to the first two interpretations, Peter Byrne goes the middle way and emphasizes "the subjectivist strands in Kant’s treatment of religion, even while it acknowledges contrary tendencies toward objectivism. There are strands that make the truth and meaning of religious affirmations relative to human needs. In the jargon of contemporary philosophy of religion, there is a strongly anti-realist thrust in Kant on God.’My study of Kant’s philosophy of religion can be taken as a further development of the achievement of Peter Byrne. I will concentrate on the regulative of God in Kant ’s philosophy and use it to analyze the religious arguments in his other works, especially in his Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Kritik der praklischen Vernunft, Krilik der Urteikraft and Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft. I will try to show that the God of Kant’s philosophy of religion belongs more to regulatively moral role than to constitution of knowledge. To achieve this goal, I will divide Kant’s philosophy into three parts, namely, theoretical philosophy, practical philosophy and religious philosophy, and will give a detailed exposition of each of them.My dissertation will have four chapters.1) Three interpretations of Kant’s philosophy of religion. I will examine first of all three interpretations of the Kant’s philosophy of religion, i.e., the traditional interpretation, the affirmative interpretation and Peter Byrne’s subjectivist interpretation. Also it is necessary to take a look at Kant’s relationship with Pietism and to give an account of Kant’s everyday life (shown by the letters to his friends) in light of his religious doctrines. Most importantly, I will introduce the distinction between regulative and constitutive.2) God in Kant’s theoretical philosophy. I will begin with a discussion of the Copernican Revolution in Kant’s critical philosophy on the basis of the distinction between phenomenon and thing-in-itself. After that, I will make a detailed analysis of Kant’s attack on the received proofs for God’s existence, namely, the ontological proof, the cosmological proof and the physico-theological proof. I will claim that in the realm of theoretical philosophy, the significance of God as morality plays the role of regulative principle rather than constitutive principle.3) God in Kant’s practical philosophy. I will first discuss reflective judgment which pursues the universal on the basis of the particular. Once we apply this principle to nature, we will find that nature can be seen as a product of an intelligent creator. However, the intelligent creator is not a living God, because what is involved here is not a determinate judgment but a reflective one. The function of the God postulated by Kant is to combine happiness and virtue.4) God in Kant’s philosophy of religion. I will focus on the status of God in Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft. This work is very influential and has aroused a great deal of discussion in contemporary philosophy of religion. In Kant’s opinion, God is the trinity of a holy lawgiver, a beneficent governor and a just judge.1believe that this should be interpreted in terms of regulative rather than constitutive.更多还原